I ran into the neighbor who was the other side of the incident in January where Hudson the wonder dog forewent the ample opportunity to kill his little dog in an unfortunate encounter. The couple of months that have passed, evidence of the winter, allowed for a friendly reconciliation, helped by how I spoke at the time with his wife to make sure everyone was okay and to apologize. I got to make my point to him that he needed to think through in advance how to deal with such encounters, and he got to apologize to Hudson several times for kicking her, which I'm sure she didn't even notice at the time, and she happily forgave him. The funny thing is that his dog no longer yaps at us from the house on our walks, and was completely silent from within during the conversation with his owner... I think his mistaken impression that he is mayor of the neighborhood has been corrected.

Nature.com versus investors.com. Are you sure you have properly identified the party with an agenda here?

Both parties have one though, if real doubts were cast on climate change being human made, those "climate scientists" would not have a job (I use the quotes to highlight, not to mock)

Conversely, if climate change is real, then investors are obviously going to have a huge problem. Because we would have to limit and terminate growth. And that means changing how the entire economy works (A goal worth fighting for even without climate change)

Point. Just because something is published with peer review doesn't mean there isn't an agenda and spin behind it. And that's the real problem here. Scientists who get paid to research climate change, and have been for many many years, will not likely make studies that disproves it.... and the industry will never admit it exists. The 2 sides have killed their arguments that way, and that is really why nobody does anything about it. There is no 100% proof like there SHOULD BE in science. It becomes a matter of belief and religion.